Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
speciation_and_plasticity [2013/02/14 10:38] – [Modeling of speciation with gene flow in the presence of phenotypic plasticity] mkopp | speciation_and_plasticity [2019/03/21 09:21] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
===== Background and general question ===== | ===== Background and general question ===== | ||
- | * Speciation is a key topic in evolutionary biology (e.g. Coyne and Orr), and one in which mathematical modeling has for a long time played | + | * Speciation |
- | * Traditionally, | + | * The reason is that speciation |
- | * Another | + | * Here, we propose to develop mathematical models that will shed light on a topic of much recent |
- | * Plasticity | + | * A **species** is most commonly defined as a group inter-fertile individuals that cannot reproduce with members of other species (Mayr 1942). Thus, understanding speciation requires understanding the evolution of reproductive isolation. |
- | * Recently, plasticity has been advertised by some as a centerpiece of an " | + | * According to the traditional view, speciation almost always requires a geographic barrier separating the range of an ancestral species (allopatric speciation). Two independently evolving subpopulations will then diverge between the nascent species (allopatric speciation) and become more and more incompatible, |
- | * General thrust: Plasticity | + | * However, there is mounting evidence for the opposing view that speciation is also without a strict geographic barrier (parapatric or sympatric speciation). Such " |
- | * Wrt speciation, plasticity is thought to facilitate phenotypic/ | + | |
+ | * **Phenotypic plasticity** | ||
+ | * Recently, plasticity has been advertised by some as a centerpiece of an " | ||
+ | * The main argument is that plasticity | ||
+ | * In the context | ||
* However, many proposed scenarios rely on verbal models, and many details remain unclear. This is particularly true for scenarios involving plasticity in an ecological adaptation trait (but see Thibert-Plante and Hendry 2011). | * However, many proposed scenarios rely on verbal models, and many details remain unclear. This is particularly true for scenarios involving plasticity in an ecological adaptation trait (but see Thibert-Plante and Hendry 2011). | ||
* Open questions include: | * Open questions include: | ||
Line 15: | Line 19: | ||
* Under what conditions does plasticity facilitate or impede the evolution of reproductive isolation in the presence of gene flow? | * Under what conditions does plasticity facilitate or impede the evolution of reproductive isolation in the presence of gene flow? | ||
* If plastic traits themselves contribute to RI, what are the interactions between the evolution of environmentally and genetically induced reproductive barriers (see Fitzpatrick 2012)? | * If plastic traits themselves contribute to RI, what are the interactions between the evolution of environmentally and genetically induced reproductive barriers (see Fitzpatrick 2012)? | ||
- | |||
===== Outline of project ===== | ===== Outline of project ===== | ||
Line 29: | Line 32: | ||
* It will also provide the student (who has a background in mathematics) with an opportunity to get to know the biological literature. | * It will also provide the student (who has a background in mathematics) with an opportunity to get to know the biological literature. | ||
- | <del>==== Modeling of speciation with gene flow in the presence of phenotypic plasticity ==== | + | ==== Modeling of speciation with gene flow in the presence of phenotypic plasticity ==== |
* The main aim of this project is to develop models of speciation that will help answering the above questions. | * The main aim of this project is to develop models of speciation that will help answering the above questions. | ||
* Development of these models will be guided by insights gained during the literature review described above. | * Development of these models will be guided by insights gained during the literature review described above. | ||
Line 36: | Line 39: | ||
* Two subpopulations experiencing primarily one or the other of the two environmental conditions will start accumulating genetic differences and, in some cases, may lose the ability to respond to the environmental cue (genetic assimilation). | * Two subpopulations experiencing primarily one or the other of the two environmental conditions will start accumulating genetic differences and, in some cases, may lose the ability to respond to the environmental cue (genetic assimilation). | ||
* Reproductive isolation evolves as a by-product of genetic divergence or via reinforcement (selection to avoid mating with the " | * Reproductive isolation evolves as a by-product of genetic divergence or via reinforcement (selection to avoid mating with the " | ||
- | * Most verbal descriptions of the process are vague with respect to the geographic setting (and the exact mechanism leading to reproductive isolation). In particular, the second phase may be imagined to happen anywhere on a continuum between allopatry and sympatry.</ | + | * Most verbal descriptions of the process are vague with respect to the geographic setting (and the exact mechanism leading to reproductive isolation). In particular, the second phase may be imagined to happen anywhere on a continuum between allopatry and sympatry. |
==== Secondary-contact scenario ==== | ==== Secondary-contact scenario ==== | ||
- | * | + | * First scenario: Divergence phase (step 2) happens in allopatry |
- | === Step 1: Genetic versus plastic divergence === | + | * That is, plasticity evolves (or is already present), then two subpopulations continue to evolve in constant habitats, which should lead to a loss of plasticity and accumulation of genetic differences. Then, secondary contact is established, |
+ | * Verbal models predict evolution of assortative mating and maintenance of genetic differentiation. | ||
+ | * An alternative outcome might be a loss of genetic differentiation and a return to plasticity. | ||
+ | * We study this scenario under various assumptions: | ||
+ | * Model of plasticity: | ||
+ | * Continuous reaction norm | ||
+ | * Threshold trait | ||
+ | * Developmental network | ||
+ | * Mechanism of assortative mating: | ||
+ | * Magic-trait, | ||
+ | * Female preference for magic trait (2-allele) | ||
+ | * Female preference for independent signal trait? | ||
+ | * Spatial structure: complete sympatry or limited gene-flow after secondary contact | ||
+ | * Key questions include: | ||
+ | * What will happen to plasticity after secondary contact? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Divergence with gene-flow ==== | ||
+ | * Here, we will study speciation without an allopatric phase | ||
+ | * Nevertheless, | ||
+ | * ... and expression of plasticity may itself lead to a reduction in gene flow (plastic magic trait) | ||
+ | * Previous models: Gavrilets and Vose 2007, Thibert-Plante and Hendry 2011 | ||
+ | * We will follow these approaches by analyzing a model with the following ingredients: | ||
+ | * Two habitat types, connected by migration | ||
+ | * Plastic and genetic adaptation possible | ||
+ | * Ecological trait may influence mate choice | ||
+ | * Female preference and/or choosiness may evolve | ||
+ | * In contrast to Thibert-Plante and Hendry (2009), we will focus on scenarios that allow for the evolution of assortative mating | ||
+ | * Key questions: | ||
+ | * Interaction between plastic and genetic barriers to gene-flow | ||
+ | * Interaction between evolution of assortative mating and evolution of plasticity (e.g., AM might increase reliability of genetic cues, sensu Leimar et al. 2006) | ||
+ | * Methods: Population-genetics modeling, coupled with adaptive dynamics; stochastic individual-based simulations | ||
+ | === Old version: Genetic versus plastic divergence === | ||
* The DPHS proposes that genetic divergence is preceded by the evolution of a purely plastic polyphenism. | * The DPHS proposes that genetic divergence is preceded by the evolution of a purely plastic polyphenism. | ||
* This has a simple explanation if plasticity is the ancestral state of a lineage encountering a variable environment, | * This has a simple explanation if plasticity is the ancestral state of a lineage encountering a variable environment, | ||
Line 50: | Line 84: | ||
* Are the results compatible with the predictions by Leimar et al. (2006)? | * Are the results compatible with the predictions by Leimar et al. (2006)? | ||
- | === Step 2: Ecological plasticity and the evolution of reproductive isolation === | + | === Old version: Ecological plasticity and the evolution of reproductive isolation === |
* The DPHS assumes plasticity in an ecological trait (an character conferring ecological adaptation). Our aim will be to study how such plasticity influences the evolution of prezygotic reproductive isolation. | * The DPHS assumes plasticity in an ecological trait (an character conferring ecological adaptation). Our aim will be to study how such plasticity influences the evolution of prezygotic reproductive isolation. | ||
* To our knowledge, the only model on this subject is by Thibert-Plante and Hendry (2009). These authors assume ... Importantly, | * To our knowledge, the only model on this subject is by Thibert-Plante and Hendry (2009). These authors assume ... Importantly, |